对信息系统本体论持透视主义态度

IF 0.9 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Timothy Tambassi
{"title":"对信息系统本体论持透视主义态度","authors":"Timothy Tambassi","doi":"10.1007/s10699-024-09941-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Insofar as disagreement may in principle regard most of (maybe all) facets of information system ontologies’ [ISOs] debate, it may also produce a plurality of views – sometimes inconsistent with each other – on ISOs’ development and design. This paper analyzes a view that makes the recognition of – and provides a theoretical foundation for – such a plurality of views a trademark: perspectivism (on ISOs). The aim is to show what exactly endorsing perspectivism consists of, and how perspectivism differs from different, competing views. Section 2 introduces the main claims of perspectivism, and remarks that perspectivism mainly deals with ISOs’ development and design. As for ISOs’ development, Sect. 3 considers domain’s partition and systematization, by distinguishing perspectivism from realism and relativism. Section 3 also shows that perspectivism implies some sort of variantism on ISOs’ representational primitives, about which perspectivism may not differ from its rivals. As for the ISOs’ design, Sect. 4 points out that despite perspectivism grants the possibility to use any procedural approach, principle, and ontological language, it is not committed to uphold that all those approaches, principles, and languages are legitimate. Finally, Sect. 5 focuses on both perspectivism’s weaknesses and (theoretical) contribution to ISOs’ debate.</p>","PeriodicalId":55146,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Science","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Being Perspectivist on Information System Ontologies\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Tambassi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10699-024-09941-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Insofar as disagreement may in principle regard most of (maybe all) facets of information system ontologies’ [ISOs] debate, it may also produce a plurality of views – sometimes inconsistent with each other – on ISOs’ development and design. This paper analyzes a view that makes the recognition of – and provides a theoretical foundation for – such a plurality of views a trademark: perspectivism (on ISOs). The aim is to show what exactly endorsing perspectivism consists of, and how perspectivism differs from different, competing views. Section 2 introduces the main claims of perspectivism, and remarks that perspectivism mainly deals with ISOs’ development and design. As for ISOs’ development, Sect. 3 considers domain’s partition and systematization, by distinguishing perspectivism from realism and relativism. Section 3 also shows that perspectivism implies some sort of variantism on ISOs’ representational primitives, about which perspectivism may not differ from its rivals. As for the ISOs’ design, Sect. 4 points out that despite perspectivism grants the possibility to use any procedural approach, principle, and ontological language, it is not committed to uphold that all those approaches, principles, and languages are legitimate. Finally, Sect. 5 focuses on both perspectivism’s weaknesses and (theoretical) contribution to ISOs’ debate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foundations of Science\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foundations of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09941-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09941-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于分歧原则上可能涉及信息系统本体(ISOs)辩论的大多数方面(也许是所有方面),它也可能产生关于 ISOs 开发和设计的多种观点--有时相互不一致。本文分析了一种观点,它将承认这种观点的多元性--并为其提供理论基础--作为一种标志:(关于 ISOs 的)视角主义。本文旨在说明赞同视角主义的具体内容,以及视角主义与不同的、相互竞争的观点有何不同。第 2 节介绍了持久主义的主要主张,并指出持久主义主要涉及国际标准化组织的发展和设计。关于国际标准化组织的发展,第 3 节讨论了领域的划分和系统的设计。第 3 节通过区分视角主义与现实主义和相对主义,探讨了领域的划分和系统化问题。第3节还表明,透视主义意味着对国际标准化组织表征基元的某种变异主义,在这一点上,透视主义可能与其竞争对手并无不同。至于国际标准化组织的设计,第 4 节指出,尽管有了视角主义,但国际标准化组织的设计并没有改变。第 4 节指出,尽管透视主义允许使用任何程序方法、原则和本体论语言,但它并不承诺坚持所有这些方法、原则和语言都是合法的。最后,第 5 节重点讨论了透视主义的弱点和对国际标准化组织辩论的(理论)贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Being Perspectivist on Information System Ontologies

Insofar as disagreement may in principle regard most of (maybe all) facets of information system ontologies’ [ISOs] debate, it may also produce a plurality of views – sometimes inconsistent with each other – on ISOs’ development and design. This paper analyzes a view that makes the recognition of – and provides a theoretical foundation for – such a plurality of views a trademark: perspectivism (on ISOs). The aim is to show what exactly endorsing perspectivism consists of, and how perspectivism differs from different, competing views. Section 2 introduces the main claims of perspectivism, and remarks that perspectivism mainly deals with ISOs’ development and design. As for ISOs’ development, Sect. 3 considers domain’s partition and systematization, by distinguishing perspectivism from realism and relativism. Section 3 also shows that perspectivism implies some sort of variantism on ISOs’ representational primitives, about which perspectivism may not differ from its rivals. As for the ISOs’ design, Sect. 4 points out that despite perspectivism grants the possibility to use any procedural approach, principle, and ontological language, it is not committed to uphold that all those approaches, principles, and languages are legitimate. Finally, Sect. 5 focuses on both perspectivism’s weaknesses and (theoretical) contribution to ISOs’ debate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Foundations of Science
Foundations of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Foundations of Science focuses on methodological and philosophical topics of foundational significance concerning the structure and the growth of science. It serves as a forum for exchange of views and ideas among working scientists and theorists of science and it seeks to promote interdisciplinary cooperation. Since the various scientific disciplines have become so specialized and inaccessible to workers in different areas of science, one of the goals of the journal is to present the foundational issues of science in a way that is free from unnecessary technicalities yet faithful to the scientific content. The aim of the journal is not simply to identify and highlight foundational issues and problems, but to suggest constructive solutions to the problems. The editors of the journal admit that various sciences have approaches and methods that are peculiar to those individual sciences. However, they hold the view that important truths can be discovered about and by the sciences and that truths transcend cultural and political contexts. Although properly conducted historical and sociological inquiries can explain some aspects of the scientific enterprise, the editors believe that the central foundational questions of contemporary science can be posed and answered without recourse to sociological or historical methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信